<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest it
doesn't need another strawpoll round

SAZ: "bug" is a minor mistake (or typo etc) in
the test sample
... it can be just fixed by the reviewer (or someone else who takes the
action item) and doesn't need to go back to the group
... it's the chairs discretion to decide what constitutes a "bug" (rather
than try to specify concrete parameters)

CS: so a "bug" is a new outcome from the TF
decision

SAZ: yes, it's a "go ahead but with some minor
modifications" (rather than "go ahead as-is" or "no, this needs to be
reqorked")

CS: in a "bug" we assume we only have minor
mistakes, that don't need re-review by the TF

1. Reject: the group totally rejects a submitted test
sample, it must be resubmitted and re-reviewed from the start

2. minor bugs as discussed above

3. more substantial bugs but not necessarily sufficient to
constitute a rejection (test sample needs reworking)

scribe: in this case it will need to have
another content-review that describes how the issues were addressed, then go
back for a strawpoll by the TF

4. acceptance of the test-sample "as-is" (sent to WCAG WG
for final approval)

5. test sample identifies an issue in the test procedure or
technique, rather than in the test sample itself

scribe: these type of test samples are
documented separately in a queue for WCAG WG to process

TB: "substantial bugs" are a conditional reject
and need to be repaired by the author
... unless author expresses consent to have TF modify the submission
... how will the submitter be made aware about the expectation, especially
for responses that are on hold and may take longer

SAZ: we haven't addressed such communication
yet, will need to when we open up for public submission